with china? sec. mnuchin: again, as i emphasized earlier, this is targeted at north korea, and anybody that wants to do trade or business with them. we appreciate the relationship with china, and we look forward to working with them. thank you, everybody. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] at the end of the day, we heard from you in ambassador nikki haley on the new north korea sanctions and the presidents week at the general assembly meeting. ambassador haley: good afternoon. we have had a very productive and strong week at the u.n. you saw united states had a very

strong president -- strong presence. the united states was out in full force, and i think the u.n. felt it, but i think it was extremely productive. you look at the beginning of the week and we started with u.n. reform. you had the president and secretary general rolling out massive reforms for the u.n. what was extraordinary is we had 130 countries that have signed on to that reform. that is two thirds of the general assembly, which is who will vote on this at the end. that was a great start to the week. then, you saw the president's address to the general assembly. i think it showed the strength of the united states but it also asked the world to come together and the countries to come together as we fight broke -- fight rogue regimes, mainly north korea and iran. i think what you saw were how a lot of countries responded. they were positive to the speech. they appreciated how blunt and

honest he was. i think that has been the overall theme from the international community this week, how straightforward he was and how refreshing it was as they heard him speak. we also today met with our allies, japan and south korea. obviously, a lot to talk about with north korea. so we had a good conversations with them. the president reassured japan and south korea, but they talked about strategies going forward for north korea. on iran, that was a topic of conversation throughout the week. i think everyone was talking about the destabilizing activities they continue to do throughout the middle east, whether it is in syria, iraq, lebanon, yemen, and the list goes on. it is something we will continue to talk about and continue to move forward so we make sure that we are stopping theeir reckless behavior as well. we also cohosted a meeting with secretary boris johnson, as well as dutch foreign minister on human rights reform.

we talked about the fact that it needed to be representative of its name. we have a lot of bad actors on that council. both the president and the vice president spoke about it and the need to see better quality countries on that council in order for it to be effective, and obviously for the united states to stay on it. if we do not see changes in the human rights council, we will continue to advocate for human rights, but we will do it on our own if we have to. then the vice president attended a security council meeting yesterday on peacekeeping reform. we have made great progress these past several months in terms of reforming peacekeeping so it is actually going towards isolitical solution, it transparent, it is accountable, but we're also giving the troops the equipment they need and the ability to be trained in order to do their jobs. we are seeing smarter peacekeeping, and i think that came together in the peacekeeping reform vote we had yesterday. one of the topics that everyone

had to talk about this week was burma. as we are dealing with the crisis in burma and we are seeing how much migration has taken place from the rohingyas going out of burma, every country is concerned. they are concerned that the military continues to be aggressive, and they are concerned the government continues to be in denial. i think you will continue to see the international community talk about that. i think you will only see them get more active on that as we go forward. finally, the security council took a great step forward. it was a measure that i think the international community had been working on for a long time. we certainly worked with our british friends on it. that was isis accountability in iraq. if you look at the fact that there have been massive mass graves and all types of terrible conduct to women and girls in those areas, whether it is what

is happening with christians or sunni and shia muslims, what we now have is part of the u.n. body that will be able to go in there and actually collect evidence and make sure it can be used in trials, so that the victims have their say and get their day in court, or at least their families do if they have lost loved ones. that was a big day for the security council today. with that, there was obviously a lot more. i think the president met with multiple countries. there were lots of talks and planning and productivity. overall, we can say it was a solid week at the u.n. and it was highly successful. i will answer any of your questions. reporter: why do you expect this latest round of sanctions will work when sanctions have failed in the past? ambassador haley: this is in reference to what secretary mnuchin talked about? this is amazing because when you look at the sanctions, north korea is already feeling it.

you hear of the lines at the gas stations they have and the fact that they are having a severe reduction in revenues. what this does is take it a step further. this says that anyone that deals with north korea, any financial institution that deals with north korea will be punished. i think this is important. it is like secretary mnuchin said, if you're going to support north korea, you have to be prepared to be sanctioned as well. reporter: you say that sanctions have been working and north korea has not [inaudible] ambassador haley: we always knew that the sanctions may not work. what the goal of the sanctions was always intended to be is to cut the revenues they can do less of their reckless behavior. if they don't have the funding for the ballistic missiles and nuclear production, then they can do less of it. that is the goal of the sanctions. it doesn't mean it will necessarily change kim's attitude or belief on what he

wants to do, but it will slow down the production of the nuclear process going forward. reporter: when the president spoke in his speech about totally destroying north korea if forced to defend ourselves and our allies what exactly did , he mean? under what circumstances would he consider totally destroying north korea? ambassador haley: i think that is common sense. if you look at it, we have said multiple times -- the president said it. members of his team have said it. we do not want war. that is the last thing anyone wants. we do not want loss of life. but at the same time, we are not going to run scared. if for any reason, north korea attacks the united states or our allies, the u.s. will respond. period. that's what's going to happen. what you are saying now is we continue to go through diplomatic measures and exhaust everything we have, and the key right now is that other countries actually support the sanctions and follow through with them, and they also continue to isolate north korea until we can get them to come to the negotiating table.

until then, that is just the reality. if they were to strike the united states, of course we would have to respond. reporter: just to clarify, that is if north korea attacks first? ambassador haley: we can't play out the scenarios on will happen, but it obviously would take something serious for the president to do something back. but there's a lot of things between where we are now and that situation that can be done. there are a lot of military options that can be done. the president will not spell out specifically what he will do, when he is going to do it, or where he is going to do it, but there are many options he has discussed with the national security team that should north korea do anything irresponsible or reckless, that he has to choose from. reporter: thank you. a quick one on the sanctions on korea and then i have a question on iran. on korea, the administration has said this is not aimed at china,

but the president said today that china told its central bank not to do business with north korea. secretary mnuchin said he called the chinese. how is this not -- especially since you talked about how china is really the main financial backer of north korea. how can this not be iran, is -- how can this not be directed at china? on iran, is there way to talk about ramping up pressure with iran destabilizing activities throughout the middle east, which i think a lot of your allies agree on, without violating the agreements, per se, as secretary tillerson said? is there a way to get allies to rally around terrorism type and other sanctions while keeping the nuclear provisions in place? ambassador haley: with the sanctions on north korea, it only impacts those who continue to do business with north korea. so if china does business with north korea, it will impact

them. if there are countries in africa that do business with north korea, it is going to impact them. it depends on countries that choose to continue to support north korea over the rest of the world that is asking them not to. in reference to iran, you have a couple of processes that take place. on october 15, the president has the decision to make on whether to certify or decertify. that is u.s. law. that has nothing to do with the jcpoa or the iran deal. that's u.s. law, and u.s. law requires the president every 90 days to decide whether the iran deal and other elements of the u.n. resolution, which would include ballistic missile testing and arms smuggling and support of terrorism, it asks the president to look at all of those things. if he still thinks the deal is in the best interest of the united states, then he certifies. if he thinks that the deal --

that the situation is not the best interest of the american public, then he doesn't certify. at that point, it goes to congress. he works with congress on how to reshape the situation. but the iran deal and u.s. law are two different things. reporter: he's saying that he could decertify without explicitly withdrawing from the deal. ambassador haley: that's right. what i will tell you, from a u.n. perspective, what you will hear us very vocal on is the fact that the resolution in place, what we saw was it basically wrapped in with nuclear deal, it said if iran did any of these things, it would be in violation. since then, the secretary-general has come out with a report that says they violated all of those things. support for terrorism, arms smuggling, the idea they continue to do ballistic missile testing, and they need to be called out for that.

that is something you will see us do as we go forward in the united nations, to make sure they know that just because we did the nuclear deal, it doesn't give them a pass on all the other things they are doing wrong. reporter: you said in your opening remarks that one topic everyone has an opinion about is burma. the president gave an address to this global u.n. body, and he did not mention myanmar at all. did you have any direct input in the speech? [indiscernible] ambassador haley: i can tell you he is very concerned about burma, because he talked to the national security team and asked exactly what is going to be done. he asked the vice president to speak about it in his speech, and he has been very involved in the decision-making. i think he, like every leader, can tell you we're scratching our heads over burma. because all this has happened in three weeks. you have almost half a million people who have left, and the tragedies and abuse happening

there is something a lot of us cannot stomach. it is mainly, if you listen to all the leaders, everybody is trying to figure out who can move the officials in burma andh -- in , where to go. reporter: [inaudible] ambassador haley: he is very concerned about burma. really he was speaking because the president asked him to. reporter: [inaudible] and would you press are publicly to do more in her role? ambassador haley: not only have we pressed her, we pressed the military. we had two things happening. secretary tillerson called her and discuss the situation with her, but general dunford said, we've had a relationship we but it cannot continue.

reporter: you have been very vocal on the shortcomings of the iran deal and iran's behavior. the strictond confines of your job here. where does that come from? is this your own direct opinion after hearing about iranian behavior here? or through conversations with the president? just talk a little bit about that. ambassador haley: i had conversations with the president. he was very concerned about iran and the deal. so i went to learn about it. to look at the resolution, to look at the violations. it was digging deep on the situation of what we found, and that is why gives a speech on the scenario that the president is being faced with the decisions to be made. this situation is not easy by any means, because you look at

north korea and you look at the fact that for 25 years, we were looking at bad deal after bad deal after bad deal and broken promises. here we are again, and we do not want to be dealing with the next north korea. that is why he is taking it so seriously and saying we need to look at every aspect of this and make sure it truly is in the best interest of the american public. reporter: the german foreign minister said any disavowal of the iran deal would reduce the likelihood of getting a similar deal with north korea appeared do you share those concerns that any actions on the deal might reduce the possibility of getting a deal with north korea? separately as a point of clarification, do you support a full oil embargo on north korea? ambassador haley: let's go to iran. what i will tell you is a lot of countries will have opinions on whether the u.s. should stand -- should stay in the deal are not.

those countries do not have iranians saying "death to america." they are not saying "death to germany." we can see terrorist attacks happening everywhere with ties to iran, and that is something we have to be careful about. it has never moved the u.s. to care about what other countries say. what does move the president is, are we doing everything in the best security interest for the american people? that is what you see playing out. in terms of comparing iran to north korea, that is what we are doing. we had so many bad deals with north korea, and everybody looked the other way. every time they broke that deal, they looked the other way. where are we now? they now have a hydrogen bomb. they now have icbm's. if we do not do something and we make the same mistakes we made with north korea, we will be dealing with iran that has nuclear weapons and ballistic missile technology. that is the concern, and that is what we are trying to do with that. reporter: madam ambassador, the president said he made a decision on iran. can you tell us what it is? ambassador haley: no. reporter: i wanted to try.

on a separate issue, the president also addressed venezuela in his remarks. he also had a meeting with latin american leaders. can you talk a little more about what he said to them? i understand they suggested to the president that an oil embargo on venezuela would be the most effective way of addressing the problem. is that something the united states would consider? ambassador haley: i was in the dinner with our latin american friends, and there was a lot of concern for all of them with what is happening in venezuela. they have all tried. we have tried to do it through multiple avenues to get to maduro and let him know what is not acceptable. the u.s. has moved forward on sanctions, and they were not opposed to that. there were conversations on what they recommended going forward, but i don't think i should share that. i will tell you there is a lot of support in latin america to see venezuela start to respect its people and go back to the democracy it is supposed to be.

i think every one of them was concerned with what is happening right now. reporter: can you talk about an oil embargo in venezuela, though? ambassador haley: if things don't improve, the options are always there. that is what we are watching to see. first it was sanctions and now we will look and see. it is not off the table, i will tell you that. reporter: there is a lot of speculation about your political future and your future position in the administration. some people are saying you are gunning to be secretary of state and get tillerson out. could you address these comments? ambassador haley: there is going to be chatter about things. ever since i was a legislator, people have talked about what i am trying to do or what i am supposed to do. what i'm trying to do is do a good job. i am trying to be responsible and make sure i inform the american people on everything that i know. that is what i am trying to do, and i'm trying to serve this country the best i can. if people want to take it to

mean some thing else, that is their issue. reporter: do you want to be secretary of state? ambassador haley: no, i do not. [laughter] reporter: ambassador, how can u.s. remain diplomatic credibility and get a nuclear deal with north korea when it is willing to consider blowing up , damaging, putting in peril the existing diplomatic deal with iran on its program? doesn't this undermine u.s. credibility? ambassador haley: it does not. what it shows is that the united states is going to always watch out for its people, and just because there was some agreement, the smartest thing any country can do is go back and look at it and say, is it working? not have too much pride to say i signed it and have to continue to be a cheerleader. is it working? i will ask you, do you think the deal is working when iran continues to test ballistic missiles? do you think it is working when they are supporting terrorists everywhere? from lebanon to human, to syria

and iraq. do you think it is still working, and do you think it is still working with their smuggling arms and working with north korea? is that in the best interest of the united states? i would question that, because what you are looking at is a country that says death to america, working with other countries that may want the same thing, and the president has the responsibility to make sure that nothing happens to americans. reporter: i have two questions on myanmar, burma. it was said that president trump is not willing to fix this issue. [indiscernible] will you make any comments or remarks? [indiscernible]

ambassador haley: i think the united states has been taken aback that so much has happened and gone in such a terrible direction in the last three to four weeks. i think what you are seeing is every member of the national security team is talking about it, and every member is calling their contacts and counterparts in burma, as well as making sure we are supporting bangladesh and what they are doing. bangladesh has been unbelievable in taking on these refugees. at the same time, we have to look at the refugees as now they have no home. it is no way for any one person to live. the human rights situation is terrible, and we want to make sure we are doing all we can. what i can tell you is it is all hands on deck in terms of the national security council trying to look at it and say, what steps are we going to take next?

last question. reporter: after losing ground in iraq and syria, the islamic state is looking to alleviate a new possible base. are you in favor of sending them back to manage the refugee camps? and what is the united states ready to do to prevent infiltration in libya? ambassador haley: if you look at the situation, i think we made amazing progress in iraq and syria in terms of defeating isis. that has almost been complete, and we are proud of that. in terms of libya, that is something the national security council's meeting with and deciding what our next plans will be, and i'm sure they will roll that out when they are ready. thank you very much.

>> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. one date walking out of my operations officer's office, i noticed chaos ridden on his whiteboard. i said, what is this about? he said, you don't need to know that. [laughter] >> what is it about? finally he said, it means the kernel has enough stand in solution. [laughter] >> it was very much tongue-in-cheek. they did not consider on my

solutions as outstanding as i enthusiastically promoted them, but i liked what might irreverent troops had used, so i adopted it as michael signer. theor the past 30 years, the library is your free resource for politics, congress and washington public affairs. whether it happened 30 years ago or 30 minutes ago, find it in c-span video library at c-span.org. c-span, where history unfolds daily. >> coming up tomorrow, we will take you to the american arab antidiscrimination committee's interval conference in washington, d.c. we will be live from the convention at 9:30 am eastern on c-span two. dimly head to the brookings institution for look at the trump administration and it immigration policy, including former head -- former homeland

security secretary napolitano. that is on c-span3, or you can watch online at c-span.org or stream on our free radioactivity next on c-span leaders, leaders addressed the human general assembly in new york. together, the speeches run about one hour and 15 minutes. will hear an address by his excellency, -- by his excellency, the president of south korea. on behalf of the nation, welcome to the united nations, his excellency, and invite them to address the assembly to read